Case 2

TITLE: GOV. ANTONIO P. CALINGIN,vs.CIVIL SERVICE

COMMISSION and GRACE L. ANAYRON,
SOURCE: G.R. Nos. 183322, October 30, 2009
PONENTE: CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

FACTS:

For consideration is a Joint Submission of Compromise Agreement

with Manifestation filed by the parties in this case, informing the Court that
they have entered into a Compromise Agreement on 6 October 2008.
Particularly, they aver: That parties have already executed a Compromise
Agreement on 6 October 2008, which agreement was entered in the
Notarial Register of Atty. Kathlene Gonzales as Doc. No. 210; Page No. 42;
Book No. III; Series of 2008; copy of which is hereto attached as Annex
"A"; That this Compromise Agreement entered into by the parties is not
contrary to law, morals, good custom and public policy. The parties pray
that the Compromise Agreement in the disposition of the present Petition
and/or approve the same, and judgment be rendered in accordance with
the terms thereof.

This Court required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for
respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC), to comment on the
aforequoted Compromise Agreement. By way of compliance, the OSG filed
the required Comment on the Compromise Agreement.

The Province of Misamis Oriental, through its incumbent Governor,

Oscar S. Moreno (Gov. Moreno), filed a Manifestation, addressing the
aforementioned concerns of the OSG. Attached to Gov. Moreno’s
Manifestation were certified true copies of the following documents
intended to clarify the legal soundness of the Compromise Agreement: (1)
ORDINANCE NO. 1075-2008; (2) RESOLUTION NO. 144-2009; and (3) A
Certification dated 6 May 2009, issued by the Office of the Provincial
Accountant, to the effect that the payment for private respondent Anayron’s
back salaries and other benefits commenced from 13 July 1999 up to 16
April 2006 only. From 17 April 2006, when private respondent Anayron was
officially reinstated to her old position, until 31 December 2006, she was
paid her salaries and other benefits based on actual services rendered.
The OSG filed on Gov. Moreno’s Manifestation. On the basis of the
certified true copies of the documents attached to the said Manifestation,
the OSG submitted that it no longer had any reservation to the approval of
the subject Compromise Agreement.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the compromise agreement between the parties is

proper.

HELD:
A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties, by
making reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation or put an end to one already
commenced. It contemplates mutual concessions and mutual gains to
avoid the expenses of litigation; or when litigation has already begun, to
end it because of the uncertainty of the result.
The validity of a compromise agreement is dependent upon its
fulfillment of the requisites and principles of contracts dictated by law; and
its terms and conditions must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public policy and public order.

The Compromise Agreement between the parties has been validly

executed in accordance with the requirements and is not contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public morals and public policy has been approved
and adopted as the decision of this Court.

WHEREFORE, it appearing that the Compromise Agreement in this

case is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public morals and public
policy, the same is herebyAPPROVED and ADOPTED as the decision of
this Court.
 
The parties are hereby ordered to faithfully comply with the terms and
conditions of said agreement.
 
This case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED. No costs.